ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act in so far as it uses the phrase if considers it necessary or expedient presupposes application of mind on part of Ld AO before notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is issued which words have been explained by Honble Apex court in case of Bhikubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

143(3) of the Act for the succeeding assessment years the claim of exemption in A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 has been admitted and accepted and copies of the same have been submitted as Exhibit P-3 & P-4 to the written synopsis. (x) Ld. AR vehemently contended according to the AO, the activities of holding One-Day International match

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

143(3) of the 1 Asian Business Connection Private Limited Income Tax Act 1961 (In short the ‘Act’) dated 29.12.2017 framed by ACIT-1(1), Bhopal. 2. Assessee has raised following ground of appeal; 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,97,74,68,364/- made by A.O. u/s 2(22)(e) as alleged

BHOLA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. I T O 4(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?” 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

68, and (b) disallowance of Rs. 5,26,439/- on account of Late GST fee (Rs. 1,000/-), Interest on VAT Tax (Rs. 53,779/-), Interest on TDS (Rs. 488/-), Penal damages (Rs. 1,27,540/-) and VAT Tax of 14-15 (Rs. 3,43,632/-). (iii) While the scrutiny-assessment was underway, the AO processed assessee’s return

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. 3. During the year under appeal on 12.7.2011 survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. During the survey proceedings it was found that unaccounted investment was made out of books in the construction of hotel. Assessee agreed to declare the unaccounted

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 22.03.2013 framed by JCIT, Range-3, Indore. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) is justified

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

143(2) of the Act. A survey u/s 133A was conducted on 12.12.2014 at the business premises of M/s. Rajesh Industries and M/s. R.R. Textile Mills. During the course of survey various anomalies were found which included ITANo.16/Ind/2019 Rajesh Kumar Bajaj excess stock, excess cash and receivable from sundry parties not shown in the books. The assessee surrendered following income

SWASTIK COAL CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2005-06

68 and Rs.4,49,316/- on account of expenditure disallowed on exempted income upon application of Rule 8D have been challenged before us. However, before arguing the matter on merit, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee raised preliminary objection in regard to the serving of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 31.08.2009 while initiating the assessment proceedings

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

2) of the Act as per the limitation period. Assessing Officer may proceed with other remedies available on record.” (ii) Shri Inder Jeet Malik Vs. ADIT, ITA No. 1024/Del/2022 (ITAT, Delhi): "5. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The basic issue requiring consideration is, whether the addition made under section 50C(1) can fall

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter-related, we proceed to dispose of all these

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter-related, we proceed to dispose of all these

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of M.P.Bullion group of cases, where the assesses are part of the said Group. Since facts, circumstances and the issues are inter-related, we proceed to dispose of all these

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 5000000 Kishan Singh Pawar 3 4000000 Mangilal Motwani 4 4000000 Manoj Shrivas 5 5000000 Narendra Kumavat 6 3500000 Rajmohan Shah 7 4500000 8 Ram Singh 2500000 9 Ramesh Agrawal 2500000 Ramesh Chand Jain 10 5000000 Suraj Kulkarni 11 5000000 Surendra Kothari 12 3000000 Suresh And Sons 13 5000000 Vallabh Chand Mundra 14 5000000 Viiav Dhakad 15 2500000 Viiav Dhakad

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 5000000 Kishan Singh Pawar 3 4000000 Mangilal Motwani 4 4000000 Manoj Shrivas 5 5000000 Narendra Kumavat 6 3500000 Rajmohan Shah 7 4500000 8 Ram Singh 2500000 9 Ramesh Agrawal 2500000 Ramesh Chand Jain 10 5000000 Suraj Kulkarni 11 5000000 Surendra Kothari 12 3000000 Suresh And Sons 13 5000000 Vallabh Chand Mundra 14 5000000 Viiav Dhakad 15 2500000 Viiav Dhakad

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 5000000 Kishan Singh Pawar 3 4000000 Mangilal Motwani 4 4000000 Manoj Shrivas 5 5000000 Narendra Kumavat 6 3500000 Rajmohan Shah 7 4500000 8 Ram Singh 2500000 9 Ramesh Agrawal 2500000 Ramesh Chand Jain 10 5000000 Suraj Kulkarni 11 5000000 Surendra Kothari 12 3000000 Suresh And Sons 13 5000000 Vallabh Chand Mundra 14 5000000 Viiav Dhakad 15 2500000 Viiav Dhakad

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

2 are also respectfully fdistinguished as theh facts of the present case are different for which the detaileed discussion has been made in the preceding paras. The assessee has also submitted that both the limbs of section 263 should be satisfied the objection is not accepted as the AO erred in making sufficient enquiry which resulted in an order

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68-76] “11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. We have also carefully perused the case law relied upon by the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the assessee. In the case of CIT vs Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 139 (Del) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the expression ‘technical services